The gospel of the jasmine bush. Amazing facts about trees growing on graves

Was there Soviet poetry?

Poetry deserves, perhaps, only two epithets: divine and priceless. The province, unlike Moscow and St. Petersburg (then, in the seventies, Leningrad), was far from both powerful printing presses and the “literary struggle” (which was structured and worked like ball lightning: no one knew where “ hit"

A. Kushner's books were precious for us. And not only because of the authenticity of poetic speaking, but also because the Moscow Arseny Tarkovsky and the St. Petersburg Alexander Kushner literally saved pure poetry, absolute poetry, not clouded by sociology, ideology and the notorious struggle,

And then, leafing through the pages of this book, I read and was numb with happiness:

On the other side of love, on the other side of death
Longing seems to be a completely different pattern:
Not this disastrous, but like watercolor,
Easily and cheerfully running into space.

O pain of the heart, for a moment reveal the wrong side,
Like a poplar tree with leaves twisted in the wind,
Like a cloak open, like the edge of the floor, a fugitive
Suddenly forcing to press the coat with his hand.

Ask it to blow, so that it smells from the sea into the garden
The invigorating freshness of the waves beating on the cape,
So that the word is even bent to us by the breeze

1. In the sphere of diction (sound junctions of words): “From that [side]… from that…”. The preposition, combined with a demonstrative pronoun, is an occasional verbal lexeme in the imperative form “stop!” (exclamation mark

2. In the sphere of intonation: repetitions “with that

3. In the sphere of rhythm: an abundance of pyrrhic and two spondei in the last stanza, of which the strongest is “beating waves”.

4. In the field of musicality: an abundance of polysyllabic words in six-foot, new,

5. In the field of phonics, phonetics and phonosemantics: “with that” = “stop!”; consonant beginning 11 verses out of 12

The poetry of Alexander Kushner is not only aphoristic, but also contains a voluminous series of masterpieces. I will list some of them: “Introductory words”, “Drawing”, “Vase”, “On the building of the General Staff…”, “Having left, you chose the space…”, “Surprising at the gallop…”, “The one who does not dance… is dancing…” , “What we call the soul ...”, “No, not one, but two faces ...”, “He got up in a Leningrad apartment ...”, “On the train”, “Rick”, “It would seem that two darkness ...”, “Snow flies up to the night window ...”, “Well, goodbye, goodbye until tomorrow ...”, “Let's go along the Moika, along the Moika ...”, “To be unloved! My God…”, “I was walking along a swollen heavy river…”, “Times are not chosen…”, “A child is the closest to non-existence…”, “Folding wings”, “From that side of love, from that side of death…”, “ And a dusty haze, and a distance in a halo…”, “Our poets”, “Night butterfly”, “Like a button, a small obol…”, “On this side of the mysterious line…”, “God with a sheep”, “As we are in the mind sure of their own…”, “Night music”, “Apollo in the grass”, “Write it down just in case…”, “Skater”, “Sugar bowl”, “Death is a privilege, if you want to know…”, “When the country is out of our hands …”, “Drinking wine in this order…”, “Farewell to the century”, “Lucky to sail along the Oka, Oka…”, “Tie”, “In December I came to visit the dacha…”, “Today we are strangely comforted…”, “Contemporaries”, “I love you in the crowd to see the city ...”, “And the table, and the chair, and the closet

55! This series, of course, can be both incomplete and redundant. But… Dealing with the history of Russian (and world: English, German, French, Spanish and Italian) poetry, having already studied and still researching the features of the language ability, linguistic personality and poetic ability (terms generally accepted in anthropolinguistics) of more than 100 Russian poets (18 -21 centuries), I noticed that the poet creates (I want to say: “on average”, but I can’t do something) about 50 wonderful, excellent, brilliant poems (I note that I am sure: there are no brilliant poets

Here we, about 15 people, exchanged books and poems, gave each other

In contrast to pure poetry, from bare and ideologically conditioned versification, A. Kushner taught me (and us) to remain free in my unfree country.

A.S. Kushner did not give an example of the poet's detachment from the world, but

leave, leave, run away

Music is fake music

Poetry (not poetry!) depends more on the weather and the soul than on politics and economics. Such are the verses of A. Kushner, a true poet, a poet from Nature and from God.

About the poems of Alexander Kushner wrote and write constantly. Modern criticism, as a rule, looks at the poet monocularly: combining poetology, anthropology and cultural studies into one. This is at best. (I foresee reproaches and insults, but not to mention this feature of our poetry [which is almost non-existent], our poetry [which is practically non-existent] and our literary criticism [which is practiced by everyone

Vladimir Gubailovsky calls Alexander Kushner a traditional poet, which means "a poet probing the future." Said physiologically directly, but not exactly and not completely: A. Kushner

Ilya Falikov calls A. Kushner “a poet of objectivity”, as well as a discussion poet, “a poet of decisions and conclusions”,

Who is quieter than the old man,
admitted to the hospital,
Through a window from afar
Looking at a bird?

The bushes are visible to him,
Pinned to the kiosk.
His pants are hanging on
Hospital, striped.

He was an accountant
Did you smear the glass with chalk?
He himself forgot
How busy he was.

Fought dominoes
Ile made a speaker?
Now he has one
The window is like a gingerbread in childhood.

And a distant maple to him
The whole is visible, to the veins,
Perhaps because
That breathes death in the back of the head.

Suddenly draw the line
Under it, as they write an estimate,
And he already

I.A. Brodsky calls A. Kushner "one of the best lyric poets of the 20th century", whose name "is destined to stand among the names dear to the heart of anyone whose native language is Russian." Brodsky notes two most important features of A. Kushner's poetry

L.Ya. remarkably accurately said about the poems of A. Kushner. Ginzburg: "Kushner's poems tell about the happiness of life and the anxiety that does not subside for it." happiness, happiness

Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev called A. Kushner a poet of life. Can't be more precise or more precise. And A. Kushner himself speaks about life directly, happily and sometimes bitterly naming its details and signs. direct speaking

Poetry is usually viewed as a literary and socially accomplished act / fact, or as an emotional-psychological entity (repository of emotions), or as a pragmatically expedient / inexpedient act. It would be good to look at poetry as an ontologically/existentially inevitable event. Actually poetry.

The main thing in the poems of A. Kushner, in my opinion,

I note that at present in the field of text creation, not only the transformation of genre systems (external and internal), but also the genera, types of verbal activity as a whole is taking place. Some hybrids appear, textual “centaurs” as a result of the total prosaicization of the poetic text and poeticization (versification

The poetry of A. Kushner is unique, therefore, because the triple power of the harmony of his poems is based on the substantive unity (adequacy) of the physical, interphysical and metaphysical.

A.S. Pushkin refers to both the first and the second: he knew how to do everything. The same, in my opinion, is the poet A. Kushner. (Compare his two poems

Go away, go away

Here is the beginning of the ethical and aesthetic scenario of the poem “Farewell to the Century” (here I do not agree with I. Brodsky [aesthetics

We parted calmly and dryly ...

Anthropomorphic metaphor unfolded, and socio-historical time (“age”) became objective and

Look at you bad...

Everything, here is an appeal to oneself, and to the world, and to space, and to time, and to the social substance of life.

Still, I feel sorry for him...

With Shostakovich and Pasternak

And the swelling of mass graves...

In this poem, A. Kushner does not capture, does not capture some poetry, but generates it himself: talent, pain, memory, passion, love for life, love for death, love for love.

The second poem is a linguistic and prosodic materialization of infinitive poetry (“poetry of poetry”, according to Gogol; absolute poetry, according to Paul Valery). I will quote it in full.

Today we are strangely comforted:
In the midst of February silence
Tree trunks covered with snow
On one magical side.

But we are influenced
Look, a little surprised
So well they are snow covered
On one magical side.
Guessing: from the south or west?
Can't tell without the sun.
The day is not frosty and not slushy,
In a dream, this is how it should be.

But we don't sleep in oblivion
Walking down the snowy street
With you in a magical direction
It's like we're actually sleeping together.

Both poems are from the same book.

And a few more words about the most important (in my opinion) in the poetry of A. Kushner. A poet (and a writer as a poet, and in general an artist as a poet)

The poem “Today we are strangely comforted ...”

I affirm: poetry (thematically any and naturally diverse: non-verbal [absolute], verbal [“squeezed” out of the world and language], verbalized [captured by the poet]),

Language (and poetic too)

If you line up the titles of all named books by A. Kushner in one row, then you will get an interesting lexical-semantic and lexical-grammatical paradigm, which is a complex, complex thematic (ideographic) group of words / concepts. There are 25 out of 36 in total (children's publications and favorites were excluded).

Is it possible to interpret this series of book titles in isolation from the total content (full) of all poems collected under the cover / under the covers? I think so: the title of a book of poems is always not accidental and is, without any doubt, a concept, an image (key), a key name, etc. In our case, the name (title) is also the identifier of the topic, nuclear meanings, chronotope, etc. Thus, a number of book titles

Naturally, this is not the only way to interpret the meta-meanings expressed by the titles of A. Kushner's books. But

The semantic and thematic division of a number of book titles revealed the following groups of poetic identifiers:

1. Thematic group of words with the meaning of emotional-psychological / creative human activity.

First impression; The night Watch; Signs; Letter; Direct speech; Voice; Canvas; daytime dreams; Flutist; Night music; Flying Ridge (quote from Pushkin); Clouds choose anapaest (attributing human qualities to a celestial object, etc.); Chalk and coal.

2. Thematic group of words with the meaning of place (topos).

Tauride Garden (2 times); Hedge; Apollo In The Snow (statue in the winter garden); On a twilight star; Yarrow (plant

3. Thematic group of words with the meaning of time (hronos).

The night Watch; daytime dreams; Night music; Cold May; In the new century.

I note that some names are points of semantic intersection of thematic groups of words, and this is normal: intersection zones, as a rule, are inevitable and perform a connecting function, thus being double / double identifiers of the metasemantic sphere of A. Kushner's poetry. The thematic group of names with the meaning of emotional-psychological / creative (poetic) activity dominates

I have the courage (based on the data of metasense analysis) to assert that in the linguistic and poetic personality of A.S. Kushner, the cognitive-cognitive component is present and dominates, and not the pictorial, ascertaining, descriptive (descriptive), etc. In addition, it is obvious that A. Kushner's poetic naming of the Unspeakable is aimed at objects of a spatial (terrestrial, celestial, elemental) and temporal nature.

It seems that the terms "metaphysical poetry", "philosophical lyrics"

Man lives part time, poet

"native" and "other"

A careful reading of the poems in the final book “On this side of the mysterious line” (On this side of the mysterious line: Poems, articles on poetry. St. Petersburg: Azbuka: Azbuka-Atticus, 2011. 544 p.), content analysis and ideographic study of poetic texts A. Kushner showed an individual poetic picture of the Inexpressible. Ideography in this case is akin to lexicography and, under the influence of poetic material, is transformed into poetography. Poetic picture of the world of the Inexpressible (or part of the world, part of the unknowable)

Poetography (ideography, poetic lexicography, semantic-thematic analysis, or

In the axiological aspect (in terms of value), some meanings expressed in a poetic text, being the most frequent, important both in text construction and in meaning formation, “outgrow” their status as the dominant elements of the semantic structure and acquire the status of a constant: this is how meanings are transformed in our consciousness into meta-entity. Dominants are enlarged, and a group of emotions is synthesized into a meta-emotion (for example, in Pushkin’s poem “I loved you, love still, perhaps ...” emotives [direct, figurative and indirect] love (3), love, soul, fade away, disturb, sad, silently, hopelessly, timidity, jealousy, languish, sincerely, tenderly, beloved form and express the meta-emotion of love), meanings

The poetic thesaurus of the Inexpressible (on the material of A. Kushner's poems) is very simple: on the left, contexts are given in which certain qualities, properties and signs of the Inexpressible are nominated, and on the right, a commentary is given (I note that such a thesaurus dictionary is not absolutely complete, but comments are, of course, subjective. The contexts are taken from the indicated edition of A.S. Kushner, indicating the page on which the text of this poem is located and the context.

Poetic Dictionary-Thesaurus of the Unspeakable
(based on the poems of A.S. Kushner)

3. Gospels. Remembrance, metaphor and method

Modern research on the historical Jesus rests on a third pillar: scholars understand that the language of the gospels is largely metaphorical. If the first pillar is the statement that the gospels combine remembrance and testimony, the third is a statement that they combine memory and metaphor that this is historical memory in the form of a metaphorical narrative, Jesus in memory along with Jesus being talked about using metaphors. This approach to the gospels allows us to go beyond the literal understanding and, which is very important, to emphasize their metaphorical truth. Metaphors and metaphorical narratives can convey truth, no matter how literal the facts are.

When we say that the gospels contain memories, the meaning of such a statement is clear: sometimes they simply convey the memories of early Christians about what Jesus said or did and what happened to him. But the meaning of metaphor and metaphorical narrative is not so simple; clarification is required here. I use the word "metaphor" in the broadest sense, there is a stricter definition when metaphor is separated from comparison. Both are figures of speech, but simile, as opposed to metaphor, uses the word "like" (or "like" in the sense of "like"). Comparison: "My love similar red, red rose." Metaphor: "My love is This red, red rose."

In the broad sense in which I use the term, the metaphorical meaning of language is more-than-literal, more-than-factual meaning. I keep talking about more-than-literal meaning, because today in Western culture it is customary to think that metaphorical language is lower than the language of facts. And when a person first hears that the biblical narrative is metaphorical, he often reacts like this: “You mean to say that this is just metaphor? But a metaphor is an excess of meaning, not a flawed meaning.

Since ancient times, Christian interpreters of the Bible have consistently maintained that Scripture has a metaphorical meaning. It has only been in the last few centuries that some Christians have come to a simplified understanding of the biblical language, emphasizing its literal and factual meaning. A commitment to a literal and factual understanding of the gospels often breeds its opposite, skepticism and rejection on the part of those who cannot believe their literal truth is true. But there is a third way beyond the hard choice between literalism or its rejection. This is such an approach to the gospel text, when we see in it a combination of metaphorical narration with historical memory. Since the idea that the language of the gospels is largely metaphorical is controversial among Christians today, I will begin with examples that are unlikely to raise objections. In doing so, I have three goals: I want to show that: (1) metaphorical language is common in the gospels; (2) it is most important to understand their more-than-literal meaning; and (3) such more-than-literal meaning is independent of historical accuracy.

The Metaphorical Language of the Gospels

I will begin with the language of Christology. I will have to talk about fairly obvious things: I want to show its metaphorical nature using examples from the Gospel of John.

Jesus is the Light of the world. Jesus is not a light in the literal sense of the word, not a candle or lamp. But metaphorically, it can be said that way. He is the light in the darkness, enlightenment, revelation, the one who gives us the ability to see. It is also light in the form of fire or flame, as Gospel of Thomas:“He who is near me is near the fire” (82).

Jesus is the Bread of Life. Of course, this is not literally the case. But metaphorically, he is "bread", food that satisfies our hunger. In a similar way, it satisfies our thirst: it is not only spiritual food, but also "living water." So he really is "bread" and "wine".

Jesus is the Gate and the Way. But in the literal sense, Jesus is neither the gate of the sheepfold, the door or threshold, nor the way, road or path. But in a metaphorical sense, he is a gate, a door, a path, a road to a new life.

Undoubtedly, these expressions are metaphorical, not literal. What would happen if someone took them literally? But for Christians, Jesus is indeed, in a metaphorical sense, what John said. These words do not contain literal truth, but convey metaphorical truth.

Not only did early Christians use metaphors when talking about Jesus, but his speech was also full of metaphors. He seemed to be inclined to think metaphorically. This is shown by his short sayings.

“Blind leaders who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:24). Jesus did not mean that they eat insects or camels.

“Let the dead bury their dead” (Matthew 8:22). He does not speak about the dead in the literal sense: it is obvious that the dead do not bury anyone, and it is very likely that those whom they bury here are among the living.

“For figs are not gathered from thorns, and grapes are not harvested from thorn bushes” (Luke 6:44). Jesus does not say where the figs and grapes should be gathered.

“Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the pit? (Luke 6:39). He does not speak of the blind in the literal sense.

"Why do you look at the mote in your brother's eye, but do not notice the beam in your eye?" (Matthew 7:3). He is not addressing people who literally have logs sticking out of their eyes.

If you take these words literally, they will lose their meaning. Metaphors convey meaning. Literalism often overlooks the meaning.

In addition, Jesus used metaphorical narratives, that is, parables. No doubt he liked to teach in this way; more parables are attributed to him than to any other member of his religious tradition. It is important to note that the truth contained in the parable does not depend on its factual reliability. I have not met a single Christian who claims that the parable of the good Samaritan describes an "actual" event - that Jesus is telling the story of what really happened on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. Similarly, no one says that there really was a prodigal son, who, when he returned home, was joyfully received by his father with great generosity, despite the displeasure of his older brother. The idea that the truth contained in these parables depends on the accuracy of the facts presented will seem foolish to any person. The parables of Jesus should be read precisely as parables, that is, as metaphorical narratives. They talk about sense, and this meaning, full of truth, does not depend on fidelity to facts.

I think any Christian up to this point would agree with me. The historical-metaphorical approach is based on this, but it does not consist only in this. The gospel stories about Jesus, which are metaphorical narratives, can be divided into two categories. The first one includes memories retold as metaphors,- these stories contain memories of past events, but they are told in such a way as to give them a deeper meaning than the meaning of historical fact. The second category includes purely metaphorical stories. They are not based on the memory of a specific event, and therefore do not represent a history preserved in memory, but were created for the sake of their metaphorical meaning.

A memory that became a metaphor

I will give two examples that belong to the first category, where the memory is presented metaphorically: this is the story of how Jesus goes from Galilee to Jerusalem, and the story of the exorcism of the demon. Both narratives are based on memories, both give real events a metaphorical meaning.

Jesus goes from Galilee to Jerusalem

At the very center of the Gospel of Mark is the story of Jesus going from Galilee to Jerusalem (8:22–10:52). This story separates and links the other two parts of the gospel: one contains the story of Jesus' public ministry in Galilee, the other about his important last week in Jerusalem. Without a doubt, this story is based on the memory of a real event: it is difficult to doubt that Jesus really came from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he was executed. Thus, it is a memory.

But Mark recounts this journey in a way that makes the event more-than-literal, more-than-historical. Mark has a story about what it means to follow Jesus. This theme is closely related to two other themes important to Mark: the theme of "the path" and the theme of "discipleship." For Mark (as well as for the first generations of Christians in general) to be student means follow Jesus By way, which leads to Jerusalem.

In Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke), as part of this journey, Jesus speaks three times about his crucifixion and resurrection: the authorities will kill him, but then he will be justified by God (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34 ). Here is the third and most extended prediction of Jesus:

Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will sentence Him to death, and hand Him over to the Gentiles; And they will mock Him, and spit on Him, and scourge Him, and kill Him, and after three days He will rise again.

And after each such prediction, Jesus talks about what it means to follow him (8:34; 9:35; 10:35–45). The most famous is the first of his three sayings: "If anyone wants to follow Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." To follow Jesus means to accompany him to the cross in Jerusalem. Jerusalem has a double meaning in this narrative. This is the place of death and resurrection, the place of the end and the beginning, where the grave becomes, as it were, a womb. It is also the place of clash with the authorities. Following Jesus means participating with him on this journey of transformation and confrontation. The story of the last journey of Jesus is a metaphorical story about the meaning of discipleship.

Mark surprisingly "frames" the story of following Jesus with two episodes about two blind men to whom Jesus restored their sight. At the very beginning of this part of the gospel, Jesus heals a blind man in the Galilean village of Bethsaida (8:22-26), at the end he restores sight to the blind beggar Bartimaeus in Jericho - this is Jesus' last stop before Jerusalem (10:46-52). Bartimaeus sits on the side of the road and calls for help. Jesus tells him:

What do you want me to do to you? The blind man said to Him: Rabbuni, so that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said to him: Go, your faith has saved you. And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the path (10:51-52).

By creating this "frame" for the story of Jesus' last journey, Mark imbued the stories with metaphorical meaning. In Mark's account, true sight, open eyes, allows you to see that being a disciple means following Jesus "on the way" - and such a path leads to Jerusalem, this is the path to a collision with the authorities, to death and resurrection.

Do the stories about the blind man at Bethsaida and about Bartimaeus contain reminiscences of real events? Maybe. Jesus healed people and perhaps in some cases restored their sight. But whatever the historian may think of it, it is clear that Mark did not set himself the goal of recounting a historical event for the sake of the event itself. Instead, he arranges the narratives in such a way that they become the framework for the account of Jesus' last journey. If we pay too much attention to their factual accuracy, we can lose sight of their metaphorical meaning: they are stories about vision, which allows us to see the way of Jesus.

Jesus Heals the Possessed

The second example of a text that combines memory with metaphor is Mark's account of how Jesus cast out a host of demons from a possessed man (5:1-20). This story is full of drama. The possessed lived in tombs; naked, he wailed day and night and beat himself with stones. He possessed supernatural strength, so that he broke the chains with which he was bound. When Jesus cast out from him the unclean spirits, who called themselves "Legion", they entered a herd of two thousand pigs, which threw themselves into the sea and drowned.

Memory. Most scholars agree that Jesus performed acts of exorcism on people he and his contemporaries believed were possessed by unclean spirits. Even the Jesus Seminar, notorious for its excessive skepticism, supported by a huge majority the view that Jesus was acting as an exorcist. Whether or not Mark's story conveys an actual event, it claims that Jesus cast out demons, and this can be called a memory.

Metaphor. The essential features of Mark's story create a powerful metaphorical narrative. Letali create a vivid picture of impurity. The possessed one lives on the other side of the Sea of ​​Galilee among pagans who are unclean. He dwells among graves that are ritually unclean. Pigs, unclean animals, graze nearby. The demons that dwell in man call themselves "legion", the word indicating the Romans (and therefore pagans) who own this land. At that time, it was thought that impurity was transmitted by contact. But in this story, Jesus does not become unclean by contact with uncleanness, the opposite happens. The unclean spirits are expelled, the unclean animals are killed, and at the end of the story, the former demoniac is clothed and of sound mind so that he can return to normal life in his society. The essence of this story is that the Spirit of God, working in Jesus, is not "infected" with impurity, but overcomes it.

Was Mark correct about what happened? Or is his story more of a metaphor than a memory? There may be different opinions on this matter. But one thing is clear: if you read this passage with the paramount importance of factual certainty in mind, you may miss the more-than-factual meaning of what Mark is saying here.

Purely metaphorical stories

The second category consists of purely metaphorical narratives, not based on the memory of any particular event, but symbolic stories created solely for the sake of their metaphorical meaning. They were not intended to describe the facts of the past. Rather, they use a symbolic language that describes what is beyond the actual meaning. I will give three examples. Regarding each of them, many leading researchers share the opinion that these narratives should not be seen as a story about real events.

Marriage at Cana

Nearly all leading scholars consider the story of Jesus turning over 450 liters of water into wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11) a purely metaphorical narrative, not a true story. What does this metaphor tell us? What will we see if we read it as a parable?

Let's start with the literary context. In John this scene begins the public ministry of Jesus. Stories like these, which mark the beginning of Jesus' activities, play an important role in the gospels. In each case, the episode that begins Jesus' public ministry indicates what the author considers essential in Jesus' life and teachings. John's introductory account, the account of the wedding feast at Cana, allows the author to inform us of the meaning of the life of Jesus and the content of his gospel.

The words with which the narrative begins: "And on the third day ..." - awaken many associations. Many great events in the Bible took place "on the third day," chief among them being the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, at the beginning of his gospel, John points to its climax. Equally significant are the following words: "there was a marriage." For Jews and Christians of the first generations, marriage was a rich metaphor: the marriage of God to Israel, the marriage of heaven and earth, the mystical marriage between man and God, the church as the bride of Christ. In addition, for the Jewish peasants of that time, the wedding was the most joyful of all holidays. Life was difficult, food - the most elementary, but even that was lacking. They seldom ate meat because it required the slaughter of their own pet or bird. But the wedding ceremony was a temporary relief from the incessant work, when one could enjoy good food and wine, as well as music and dancing.

These associations help us understand the full power of this introductory narrative: John says that the story of Jesus is the story of a wedding feast. What's more, this festival never runs out of wine. And that's not all: the best wine is served here at the end. We can see all this if we see a more-than-literal meaning in the text, if we read it as a metaphorical narrative, as a parable. In a literal reading, the question of the reliability of the miracle becomes the main one, from which follows the question: “Do I believe that this really happened?” When the focus is on belief (or lack thereof) in whether Jesus could turn water into wine, the metaphorical meaning of this story can be overlooked.

Peter walks on water

In the previous chapter, speaking about the development of the language of Christology, I briefly mentioned that Matthew changed the ending of the episode about Jesus walking on the water and calming the storm described by Mark. We will now return to this episode and look at another change Matthew made, namely to the story of Peter walking on the water (Mt 14:28-31).

Let me remind you that the disciples are in a boat on the waters of the Sea of ​​Galilee. Night came, a storm began, waves beat against the boat, they are "in the middle of the sea." The students were in danger.

And then, out of the darkness, Jesus approaches them, walking on the water. Terrified, they think they are seeing a ghost and scream in fear. But Jesus says, “Be of good cheer; It's me, do not be afraid» (14:27). And here's what happens next:

And Peter answered Him: Lord, if it is You, command me to walk to You on the water. He said go. And Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus: and seeing the wind, he was frightened and, starting to sink, he shouted: Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus, holding out his hand, supported him, and said to him, O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?

Again, if we compare the two approaches, literalism and fact-finding with metaphorical reading, we come to interesting conclusions. The first emphasizes the authenticity of what happened. Jesus actually walked on the sea - as did Peter, who until he got scared and started to sink. What do we see when we read the passage literally? Just a story about an amazing event that cannot be repeated? Or does the text imply that we, too, can - in the most literal sense - walk on water, as long as we are not afraid and have proper faith in Jesus? Is that really the point of this story: that we, too, can walk on water?

If we read it as a metaphorical narrative, we will place the emphasis in a different way. When Peter became frightened, he began to sink, and his fear was called "lack of faith." The way it is. When we have little faith, we drown. But with faith we stand on the water even in darkness, during a storm or disaster. The 19th-century Danish theologian and philosopher Søren Kierkegaard defined faith this way: faith is swimming on water seventy thousand fathoms deep. If we get frightened and start to flutter, our strength leaves us and we drown. But faith keeps us on the water. In Deniz Levertov's poem "Open Confession", the meaning of faith is described in the following words:

As a bather is not afraid

lie looking at the sky

supported by water

as a falcon lays down in the air,

and the air holds it

so I want to learn

fall and swim

in the deep embrace of the Spirit of the Creator,

knowing that no effort deserves

this all-encompassing grace.

This is what - and much more - the meaning of this story, if it is read as a metaphorical narrative.

To understand the metaphorical meaning of such texts, it is not necessary to deny their authenticity. Someone wants to believe that Jesus really turned water into wine in Cana, that he really walked on water and called Peter to him. However, it's still important to ask yourself, "What is the more-than-literal meaning of these stories?" For they were retold precisely for the sake of their more-than-literal meaning. So sometimes I say, "Believe anything about the factual accuracy of these stories - and now let's talk about their more-than-literal meaning." The truth of a metaphorical narrative does not depend on the validity of the facts. Historical accuracy is not their purpose. These thoughts will be especially important to us when we come to the third example.

Stories about the birth of Jesus

The stories of Matthew and Luke about the birth of Jesus are very familiar gospel stories. For many Christians, their first memories of Jesus, the Bible, and God are closely intertwined with Christmas stories. And in childhood, most of us without a shadow of a doubt thought that "that's the way it was."

But many leading Bible scholars think that these stories are more metaphorical narratives than historical memories. And since this statement may surprise some Christians and seem doubtful to others, I will begin with a brief explanation of why scientists think this way, and only then move on to a more important issue - the rich and provocative meaning of these metaphorical narratives. I do not seek to "debunk" the stories of the miraculous events around the birth of Jesus, on the contrary, I emphasize that they have great power as stories that convey the truth and are filled with truth.

Scholars question the historical accuracy of Jesus' birth stories for a variety of reasons. First, they were created quite late. We find Christmas stories only in Matthew and Luke, and these gospels were written in the last two decades of the first century. Neither Mark, the very first evangelist, nor Paul, the author of the very first book of the New Testament (5), speak of a special birth of Jesus. John is silent about this. Suppose the stories about the miraculous birth of Jesus appeared quite early and were important for the first Christians - how then to explain the fact that only Matthew and Luke write about the birth of Jesus and Mark, Paul, John and all other authors of the New Testament are silent?

Secondly, in content and plot, Matthew's story is very different from Luke's story. Often we do not notice this, because during Christmas we read them together, so that both the Magi and the shepherds gather near the manger.

From Matthew, Joseph learns about Mary's pregnancy, and then an angel reveals to him in a dream that this pregnancy is "from the Holy Spirit." Then, after the birth of Jesus, the wise men from the East go to the baby following the moving star. King Herod learns of the birth of Jesus and gives the order to kill all children under the age of two in Bethlehem. To avoid this fate, Mary and Joseph with Jesus flee to Egypt, where they remain until the death of Herod. After that, they think about returning to Bethlehem, but then change their plans and settle in Nazareth in the Galilee. It is amazing that Luke says nothing about all this.

At the same time, Matthew does not mention many things that are familiar to us from the Christmas holidays. There is no Annunciation, there is no journey to Bethlehem, where there was no place for Joseph and Mary in the hotel, so Jesus was born in a barn, there are no shepherds, no angels singing in the night sky "Glory to God in the highest." All this, like many other elements, we will find only in Luke. The Evangelist devoted forty-five verses to the story of the birth of John the Baptist to old and childless parents, and Matthew does not say a word about it. (It must be said that Matthew devoted only thirty-one verses to the birth of Jesus.) Only Luke has “My soul magnifies the Lord”, the Song of Zechariah and “Now you let go”, the Song of Simeon - these great hymns that Christians have been singing for many centuries in worship . Only Luke mentions the circumcision of Jesus and gives the story of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple.

The main characters (with the exception of Jesus) of the stories also differ. In Matthew, the main role belongs to Joseph, Mary is mentioned in passing. In Luke, Mary, Zechariah and Elizabeth play the main roles, while Joseph remains in the background. Matthew speaks of wise men, Luke speaks of shepherds. Finally, the genealogies, the lists of the ancestors of Jesus, also differ.

Of course, there are similarities as well. These include: being conceived by the Holy Spirit, being born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod, the names of Jesus' parents, and Nazareth as the place where Jesus grew up. But even in these similar details there are differences. Both Matthew and Luke indicate that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but disagree on whether the home of Mary and Joseph was there. In Matthew they live in Bethlehem; at Luke - in Nazareth, but they go to Bethlehem because of the census. Both evangelists talk about being conceived by the Holy Spirit, but they talk about it in different ways. In Matthew, Joseph learns about this in a dream. In Luke, the angel Gabriel proclaims this to Mary.

And finally, these stories contain indications that they belong to the genre of metaphorical or symbolic narrative. There are an abundance of angels. In Matthew, angels often talk to Joseph in his sleep. In Luke, Gabriel speaks with Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, and then goes to Nazareth to Mary. Another angel addresses the shepherds and is then joined by a host of angels singing in the night sky. Heroes often praise God in memorable hymns. A special star moves across the sky to lead the wise men from the East to the place where Jesus was born. In both cases, the Divine conception is indicated. When we find such features in a story, we usually conclude that it is not a list of historical facts, but a metaphorical or symbolic narrative.

This is why most leading scholars do not consider the stories of the birth of Jesus to be historical accounts of fact, but metaphorical narratives. Some Christians view this conclusion with apprehension. It seems to them that by denying the literal meaning of the virgin birth and other amazing events, we deny the power of God. But this is not true. This is not a question at all. "Can God do things like that?". Rather, it is a question: “What kind of narratives are we seeing?” Those same Christians might think that by denying the virgin birth, we are denying that Jesus is the "Son of God," as if that title were contingent on God-assisted biological conception. And so here I can only repeat what I have said before: believe as you please in how Jesus was conceived - and now let's ask ourselves what kind of meaning these stories. Disputes about the historical accuracy of events most often only prevent us from understanding it. So, now consider the meaning of these metaphorical narratives. This will allow us to understand why it is important to combine a historical approach with a metaphorical one, since the language of these stories is rich in meaning in a historical context, in the historical environment of Christianity in the first century. The content of the birth stories intersect with Jewish tradition and challenge the Roman Empire.

In both stories, we constantly encounter images Sveta. In Matthew, a special star in the night sky guides the wise men until it stops in Bethlehem (2:9). Luke uses imagery of light in his hymns: "The Rising Sun will visit us from on high, shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death" (1:78–79); and Jesus is there called "a light to reveal to the Gentiles" (2:32). Also in Luke, the "glory of the Lord", the radiance of God's light, illuminates the shepherds who watch their flock in the night (2:9). Light is an archetypal religious image that can be found in any of the world's religions. Thus, at the birth of the Buddha, the sky was filled with great light. And "enlightenment" as an image of salvation is central to many religions, including Christianity.

Light as a symbol of salvation, we will also meet in the Old Testament. Here are two examples from Isaiah: “The people that walk in darkness will see a great light” (9:2) and:

Arise, shine, [Jerusalem], for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen over you. For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and darkness the nations; but the Lord will shine upon you, and his glory will appear upon you. And nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness that rises above you (60:1-3).

What these images speak of is briefly expressed in the Gospel of John: Jesus is the light in the darkness, the true light that enlightens every person, the Light of the world (John 1:5, 9; 9:5). The second theme of the stories about the birth of Jesus is performance all the deep aspirations and hopes of ancient Israel. To show this, Matthew gives five quotations from the Old Testament, comparing them with the events of his story and each time prefixing them with a standard expression that shows that what happened happened, so that the words spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled. However, a careful study of these passages shows that in the context of the Old Testament there are no predictions about the future made several hundred years before. Rather, Matthew is trying to show that Jesus became the fulfillment of Israel's hope.

Luke achieves the same goal in a different way. He does not quote from the Old Testament as predictions, as Matthew did. Instead, he included hymns in his story that echo the Old Testament:

[God] brought down the rulers from their thrones and exalted the humble; He filled the hungry with blessings; and sent away the rich with nothing; supported Israel, His servant, in memory of mercy - as He said to our fathers - mercy to Abraham and his seed forever (1:52-55).

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who visited and made redemption for his people, and raised up for us a horn of salvation in the house of David, his servant ... salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us (1:68-71).

Or here are the words of the elder Simeon:

Now You release Your servant, Lord, according to Your word, in peace, for my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all peoples: a light to reveal to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel (2: 29-32).

Fulfillment does not mean that the predictions of the prophets were fulfilled, as if the Old Testament contained specific references to Jesus. Some places in the New Testament give rise to this impression (especially in Matthew), and sometimes such arguments lead to an attempt to prove the supernatural origin of the Bible. Rather, the words of fulfillment assert that in Jesus, to use the words of the familiar hymn "O little city of Bethlehem" - "Tonight all the hopes and fears of these years have converged on You." As metaphorical narratives, both birth stories say that Jesus fulfilled not only the aspirations of ancient Israel, but the hopes of the whole world.

The third theme is conception from God which is impossible from a human point of view. In the Old Testament, this theme is closely related to God's promises to Israel. The story about the ancestors of Israel says that God promises them numerous offspring, like the stars in the sky. However, Sarah, and Rebekah, and Rachel (the wives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, respectively) are all barren. And at the age of ninety, Sarah conceives a child and Isaac is born to her. Similarly, Rebekah and Rachel cannot give birth until God opens their wombs. Later, Samson and Samuel, who delivered Israel from disaster, were born barren women. This, of course, is not a Divine conception in which a man did not participate. But this is conception with the help of God at a time when it was humanly impossible, for the sake of the fulfillment of the promises of God. The same thing happens with Jesus: his conception points to this theme.

The fourth theme is the claim that Jesus is God's Son. All four gospels and all other books of the New Testament speak of this, but only Matthew and Luke associate this title of Jesus with conception and birth. This is not the case with Mark and John. We will not find among them, as already mentioned, also stories about the birth. We learn from Mark that Jesus is the Son of God when he, already an adult, is baptized by John. Paul speaks of Jesus "begotten of the seed of David according to the flesh, ordained the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of holiness, in resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3-4). If we hear Paul's words, putting aside later Christian theology so that it does not affect our perception, we will see that Jesus received the status of the Son of God through the resurrection.

But in both birth stories, this status is associated with the Divine conception. Matthew is indirect about this, while Luke is direct. In his birth account, Matthew refers to Jesus as the Son of God only indirectly when he quotes the prophet Hosea: "Out of Egypt I called my Son" (2:15). Luke is direct about this. When the angel Gabriel informs Mary that she will conceive a child with the Holy Spirit, he adds that the one who is born will be the “Son of the Most High,” the “Son of God” (1:32, 35). As with the previous theme of the humanly impossible conception that God makes possible, so this theme asserts that everything that happens in Jesus will be "of God" and "of the Spirit."

The theme of divine conception, connected with the status of the Son of God, brings us to the fifth theme: the birth stories openly challenge the claims of Rome's imperial theology. Within the imperial theology of Rome, the emperor was the Son of God by virtue of his divine origin. It began with Julius Caesar (the word "caesar" or "caesar" means "emperor"), who was the Son of God as a descendant of the goddess Venus through her son Aeneas. After he was killed in 44 BC. e., there were stories about his ascent to heaven, where he forever took a place among the gods.

These ideas gained weight and took on an expanded form in the time of Caesar Augustus. He was born under the name Octavian in 63 BC. e., and then became the adopted son of Julius Caesar. After the assassination of his father, the empire was engulfed in a large-scale civil war, but then, in 31 BC. BC, Octavian defeated the troops of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Cape Actium off the northwestern coast of Greece. From this moment until the year 14 A.D. e. he ruled Rome and the territories subject to it under the name "Caesar Augustus".

The power of the empire allowed him to surround himself with incredible honor. He was "August", divine. He was the savior who brought peace to the earth by ending the civil war. Throughout the empire, coins, solemn inscriptions and temple paintings - all this is the analogue of modern media - glorified him as "the son of god." He also held other titles such as "god", "manifested god", "lord", "lord of the whole world", and "savior of the world". In Egypt, he was called "God from God."

And therefore it is not surprising that there were stories about the divine conception of the emperor. According to the Roman historians Suetonius and Lyon Cassius, Augustus' father was the god Apollo, who inseminated his mother Atia when she was sleeping. That same night, Atia's husband had a dream that confirmed the divine conception: he saw the sun come out of her womb. Other people saw other omens regarding the future fate of Augustus. Even as a child, when he was a child, vivid and memorable miracles were performed in his life.

His birth was a sign of the beginning of a new era and a new calendar. Here is what one inscription found in Priene (on the western coast of modern Turkey) says:

The birthday of the most divine Caesar (August) is ... a day that we have the right to compare with the beginning of everything, at least in a practical sense, since he restored order to everything that decayed and fell into chaos, and gave a new look to the whole world ... Therefore, it is possible in all fairness to say that this is the beginning of life ... All members of society should celebrate the same day of the beginning of the new year, the birthday of the most divine Caesar.

The inscription below uses the word "gospel", "good news" (in Greek euaggelia) that August brings to the world:

In his appearance, Caesar exceeded the expectations of those who predicted good news (euaggelia), he not only outstripped the benefactors of the past, but also did not give up hope that greater benefactors would appear in the future; and since the birthday of the god who first brought this glad tidings to the world (euaggelia) living with him ... the Hellenes of Asia [Asia Minor] decided that the New Year in all their cities should begin on September 23, on the birthday of Augustus.

The new calendar divides history into two eras: "before Caesar Augustus" and "after Caesar Augustus." Thus, "the divine Augustus was not only the lord of the empire and the earth, but also the lord of the calendar and time."

The titles with which Augustus was crowned - god, son of god, savior, lord, he who brought peace to earth - passed to his successors, other emperors. And in this historical context, it can be understood that Luke's story of the Nativity defies empire. By virtue of the miraculous conception, Jesus is the "Son of God" and is destined to dethrone the mighty from their thrones. This is especially clearly shown by the words of the angels addressed to the shepherds, in which echoes of imperial theology and polemics with it are heard:

For, behold, I announce to you great joy, which will be to all the people: today in the city of David a Savior was born to you, who is Christ the Lord ... Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace (Luke 2:10-14).

Jesus, and not Augustus and his successors, is the Son of God, Savior and Lord. It is Jesus who will bring peace to the earth.

Matthew's birth story also contains attacks against the empire, although there is no direct echo of the language of imperial theology. Instead, Matthew points to the story of Israel's deliverance from Egyptian slavery. He depicts Herod as the new pharaoh. Herod ruled Judea, respecting the interests of Rome. When he learned from the wise men that a child was born who was to become "the king of the Jews", he decided to kill the baby. The wise men did not return to Jerusalem to tell about the child, and this violated Herod's first plan - and then he orders to kill all Jewish children under two years old in Bethlehem and its environs, like the pharaoh in the story of the Exodus, who ordered to kill all boys born to Jews. "Pharaoh" Herod wants to kill Jesus, the new Moses. Herod symbolizes all the rulers of the world who seek to destroy the true king, whose kingdom, the kingdom of God, is opposed to the kingdoms of this world. Thus both Matthew and Luke, each in their own way, show that Jesus and the early Christians were challenging the empire.

As metaphorical narratives, stories about the birth of Jesus have many different meanings. Created after Easter, they are like an overture to the gospels and the story of the life of Jesus. They emphasize the central moments of this story: Jesus as a light in the darkness, as the Wisdom of God, attracting the wise men from the Gentiles, as the fulfillment of the hope of Israel, as the Son of God, Lord and true king, as a revelation of God to Israel and the whole world. In general, evangelicals claim that all these titles and properties belong to Jesus.

To conclude this section, I want to talk about the paradoxical meaning of the word "literal." What is the literal meaning of the parable? Its literal meaning is its metaphorical meaning. What is the literal meaning of the poem? Its literal meaning is its poetic meaning. What is the literal meaning of the symbolic or metaphorical narrative? Its literal meaning is its symbolic and metaphorical meaning. But in Western culture over the past few centuries, "literal" has become increasingly understood as "factual", while people have come to believe that factual accuracy is more important than metaphorical one. Therefore, when people say that they understand the biblical stories “literally”, most often they mean that they believe in the facts presented there. Therefore, it is not so much a matter of opposition literal reading the metaphorical, how much about contrasting fact metaphor. When a text is read with attention to fact and not to metaphor, its literary genre is often overlooked. When the metaphorical is understood as factual, such a story is hard to believe. But when a metaphorical narrative is understood metaphorically, it can convey a truth that is powerful and challenging.

Method: search for memory

In two chapters we have discussed the nature of the gospels and their language, and now it is time to turn to the most important methodological issue for the study of the historical Jesus. How can a historian distinguish between elements of remembrance and elements of post-Easter testimony of faith, memory of the past from metaphorical narration?

Sometimes it's easy. Leading scholars generally believe that the Gospel of John is primarily a metaphor and evidence, from which it is difficult to isolate a sufficiently "reliable" memory. The synoptic gospels contain more memories of historical events. But it is sometimes quite difficult to decide which text is the result of memories and which is not. Therefore, in the remainder of this chapter, we will look at the two most important criteria that allow us to decide that a certain element goes back to Jesus before Easter, in addition, I will give additional considerations about the use of these criteria.

Two criteria

The first criterion is the most objective, it is cross-validation (multiple attestation). If we expand this concept, we can say this: if any element of the gospel tradition - an event, a lesson, a topic - is two or more independent sources, moreover, at least one of the sources is early, it can most likely be classified as a memoir. It is important to pay attention to the word "independent". For example, many episodes are described in all three synoptic gospels, but this does not mean that they go back to three sources, since Matthew and Luke depend from Mark, that is, Mark was the source of that material which is found in all weather forecasters.

The essence of this criterion is quite obvious. If an element of tradition occurs in only one source, then it is more likely to come from the source. But if it occurs in two independent sources, it is unlikely that it belongs to one of the sources. Rather, both sources testify to the presence of this element in the developing tradition. The probability that a given element has an early origin increases when one of the sources is early (recall that our early sources are Mark and Q). When these conditions are combined, we have strong evidence that the element goes back to Jesus. In such cases, the burden of proof lies with those who claim otherwise - that this is a post-Easter development of the tradition. But if an element occurs in only one source, the burden of proof lies with those who attribute it to Jesus before Passover.

The second criterion is correspondence(coherence). It is based on the first one. Namely, if an element of tradition corresponds to the image of Jesus that we get using the first criterion, it can be categorized as a memoir, even when it occurs in only one source. The classic example of such a case is the parables that are given only by Matthew or only by Luke. Historians generally agree that these parables go back to Jesus because they fit in form and content with what we already know (or think we know) about Jesus. We can say this: the first criterion gives us the "imprint of the voice" of Jesus; the second allows us to assert that the material of the gospels, consistent with this "imprint", goes back to the historical Jesus.

Additional Considerations

There are at least three additional considerations that need to be taken into account using these criteria. First, if the text reflects a clear trend towards the development of tradition, there is a high probability that this is post-Easter creativity, and not a memory. To establish this, it is necessary to recognize such a trend. If we have proved the existence of such a tendency in a given text, this becomes an important factor in answering the question of whether a given text contains a memory.

I will give two examples. In the previous chapter, we spoke about one feature of the development of the tradition: the fact that the authors supplement Christological expressions with texts that did not contain them. Therefore, a careful attitude to historical facts forces us to consider these expressions as a product of the theological creativity of the community, or at least leave them in a "suspended" state, that is, classify them in a category about which we have not yet made a judgment. But such elements cannot be attributed with complete certainty to the historical Jesus, even if we find them in an early source.

The second example of a demonstrable trend towards the development of tradition is the situation when at the end of the parable of Jesus there is a "lesson", a short statement explaining its meaning. Consider the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). The owner of the vineyard hires workers at different hours, and then pays everyone the same amount at the end of the day. At the end of the parable, Matthew has a brief statement: “So the last will be first and the first last.” But these words have nothing to do with the meaning of the parable. They are related to the parable only in that the last hired were the first to receive the money, and the first hired were the last to be paid. But the parable itself is not about this, its essence is revealed by the reaction of workers to the fact that they all received equal pay. Therefore, it is false to think that Matthew added the last verse to the parable. It is possible that Jesus said these words, and even more likely that he did not - in any case, these words, as a commentary on the parable, are a product of tradition.

Here is another similar example - the parable of the dishonest steward (Luke 16:1-10). The owner of a large estate is about to dismiss his manager, and then the latter calls together the debtors of his master and writes off part of their debts. The parable is followed by three verses, each of which contains the "lesson" of the parable: "In dealing with people of their kind, the sons of this world are smarter than the sons of light"; “Make friends for yourself with unrighteous wealth, so that when it is gone, they will accept you into eternal abodes”; and "He who is faithful in a little is also faithful in much, and he who is unrighteous in a little is unrighteous in much." Obviously, Luke added something here. And so, when we find a brief "lesson" at the end of the parable, we have reason to doubt that this text was part of the original parable.